Has anyone considered that Darby hasn't gone far enough? We have no reliable evidence that this thing called "World War II" existed. The eyewitness statements are from old, unreliable folks, and the non-forged historical records simply don't support the existence of a "war," "Europe," "Germany," or, "Japan." It's an obvious ruse by the quite active World War II industry.

OK, I understand why it is troubling to have as a candidate for an important elected position someone who denies the existence of the Holocaust, but why his atheism be an issue? If his atheism in some way makes him a bad candidate, please explain why; and if not, it seems somewhat gratuitous to mention his religious belief next to the word "holocaust denying." It seems, from what I have read, that the guy is a nut job, but I do not think it is fair to hold him out as reprentative of atheist beliefs.

Oh, I don't think his atheism makes him bad -- as some of the other posts on this thread show, I've criticized hostility to atheism myself. In this post, Darby's atheism is a back reference to remind readers of past posts who this guy is; in those past posts (see the link above), I stressed his atheism because I wanted to warn atheists away from this fellow, who had been a leader in atheist circles.

It's also interesting to see into what odd corners anti-Semitism has spread. We're familiar with Christian anti-Semitism (though fortunately there's much less of it these days than in the past), and with Muslim anti-Semitism -- I wonder how it is that passionate atheism and passionate anti-Semitism go together.

"I wonder how it is that passionate atheism and passionate anti-Semitism go together."

If you think about it, this is as goofy a statement as "I wonder how it is that not being Brad Pitt and anti-Semetism go together." Seriously, how hard is it to understand that atheism isn't itself any sort of guide to anything a person might believe (OTHER than that they don't believe in Gods)?

Now, what I have to wonder is why we hear screams of outrage when people suggest that an insane bigot like Robertson is part of the Republican party and agenda (a man who many people in the Republican party, especially in VA, still regularly kiss the ring of and court the close supporters of, despite the occasional need to distance themselves from one of his wacky pronouncements), but this wacko who basically is running in a Democratic primary that allows in anyone who can get some minimal amount of signatures is being paraded around the conservative blogosphere as an example of what Democrats are all about.

Plunge: I don't know about "the conservative blogosphere" generally, but I'm pretty sure that I haven't once suggested that Darby is an example of what Democrats are all about. If you have some pointers to conservative bloggers who are suggesting that Darby is indeed such an example, please feel free to quote them and link to them.

Well, let's see. I DIDN'T say that you did. But your incredulity about the story being all over the conservative blogsphere is mindboggling.

The story has been on drudge's front page for weeks now in some form or another. It's mentioned FoxNews and its assorted radio pundits variously. Come to think of it, nearly every conservative blog has found reason to mention it in some way or another.

All this for a candidate with no money, who's never broken 12% in the primary polls (which at this point are mostly o people who know nothing about the man or his views), and who is part of the race because they by their own party laws have to allow any registered D to be part of the race if they want to run no matter how ridiculous they are.

I am a "conservative blogger," and I have posted several entries on Darby over on my site. In my most recent post on the subject, I actually defended the Democrats...well, sort of.

Darby only changed his party affiliation to the Democratic Party within the past year, by the way. Previously, he had considered himself a Libertarian. In the Dem primary for AG, Darby is running against a better-known and better-financed DA from Mobile named John Tyson, Jr. Darby has no chance whatsoever of winning that primary.

"I am amused you turn this around on Republicans even when it's a democrat primary. Clean your own house before you go looking to others."

The house isn't dirty: this guy has no chance of being elected. Anyone that wants to can run as a Democrat in a primary as long as they register as one (or whatever it takes in a given state) and put in minimal effort to qualify. There is no "party veto" over who can run and who can't. It doesn't work like that (in most states, by law it CAN'T work like that).

Fine, then shout that from the rooftops. Say that he is a leftover embarrassment from the Bull Connor era and anyone would be better. But don't get pissed at Eugene for pointing out that he IS a democrat.

Yes, there are some Republicans that do this kind of crap, and I get ashamed of them every time, but I do my best to drum such primates out of the Republican Party. I don't blame democrats for pointing them out - I get mad I didn't find them and deal with them in the first place.

Ads attacking a little known candidate in a primary can increase his name recognization and therefore boost the candidacy (one primary dirty trick is for one party to run ads attacking the weaker candidate of the other party). But here, the cat's out of the bag.

The state Democratic Party has denounced the guy. Other than denouncing the bigot and supporting the non-bigot, what more can the party do?

In all, I think the attention is good. Democratic voters in Alabama have to know how really, really bad it would be for the state and the party for this bigot to be nominated. Atheists need to know that they don't want this guy in any leadership position.